Left-wing Blogs Upset Over Questioning By O'Reilly Producer

Without Bush, Cheney and other past favorites to kick around, left-wing bloggers have become truly desperate for fresh targets. Dying for something to gripe about while their side enjoys one-party rule, they've returned to the old "Bill O'Reilly's producers are stalking us" chestnut.

– The Stalking: Watters and his camera man accosted me at approximately 3:45 p.m. on Saturday, March 21, in Winchester, VA, which is a two-hour drive from Washington, DC. My friend and I were in this small town for a short weekend vacation and had told no one about where we were going. I can only infer that the two men staked out my apartment and then followed me for two hours. Looking back, my friend and I remember seeing their tan SUV following us for much of the trip.

– The Ambush: Shortly after checking into our lodgings, we emerged and immediately saw two men walking toward us calling out my name. Watters said he was from Fox News, but never said his or his companion’s name, nor did he say he was with The O’Reilly Factor.

– The Surprise Attack: Watters immediately began asking me why I was causing “pain and suffering” to the Alexa Foundation. He never gave me the context for his questions. Confused, I repeatedly asked him what he was talking about and whether he could refresh my memory, but he just continued shouting his question.

– The Evasion: I said that it was inappropriate for O’Reilly to imply that just because a woman may be drunk and/or dressed in a certain way, she should expect to be raped. Watters asked me whether I had listened to the interview (which I had) and claimed that O’Reilly had made the comments in the context of a commentary on Mel Gibson/drunkenness. When I tried to ascertain why he was attacking ThinkProgress in particular — even though other sites had also covered the story — he said that we were part of the “smear pipeline,” which also included the “Soros-funded” Media Matters. He ignored my comments when I asked if Fox News also smears people.

– Setting A Guilt Trap: Watters ended the charade by demanding that I look into the camera and apologize to the Alexa Foundation and rape victims. I told them that I don’t speak through Fox News and if someone from the Alexa Foundation would like to personally call me, I’d be happy to speak with that person.

– More Stalking: The camera man then continued to film me as I walked down the block. After a few minutes while I waited at the light to cross the street, Watters called him back and they left.

Don't "ambush" and "surprise attack" belong in the same category? Talk about melodrama.

The bottom line: this entire conflict is the result of liberal uneasiness with the idea that O'Reilly might generate public goodwill with this work on behalf of rape victims. Worried that he might be seen in a positive light, the smear machine was cranked up to the max, but when O'Reilly's team fought back, "progressive" bloggers were apoplectic.

Brian claims Jesse Waters was "merely seeking an interview" with Amanda Terkel. Did Jesse attempt to call Amanda, or e-mail Amanda to set up an interview? If not, did he in any other way indicate to her that he wanted to discuss with her , the post she made about Bill O'Reilly?

If, with no prior notice, you go to a person's residence, then follow them by vehicle for two hours to confront them on an issue, you have stalked them. That is what Jesse Water's and the Fox crew are reported to have done. If this is factually incorrect, have O'Reilly get on the air and say so. Tell us exactly how Amanda Terkel's account is incorrect (other than the loudness of the questioning).

The point is that on several occasions Bill O'Reilly has made statements that seem to place blame on the victim's of sexual assualt , for their assualt. If he would just apologize for some of the things that he has said in this regard, and say that he was going to try to make ammends for them by raising funds for a foundation that helps victims of such assualts, he would be received differently. Instead he uses his goons to confront anyone that tells the truth about some of the things he has said in the past. He attempts to say that by telling the truth, these people are harming people who are doing good work to aid the victims of assualt. The problem remains that by having O'Reilly be the featured speaker at a fundraiser for the "Alexa" foundation, without him coming clean on things he has said in the past, the judgement of the organization (that cleary IS trying to do good things), is in question.

"The point is that on several occasions Bill O'Reilly has made statements that seem to place blame on the victim's of sexual assualt , for their assualt. If he would just apologize for some of the things that he has said in this regard, and say that he was going to try to make ammends for them by raising funds for a foundation that helps victims of such assualts, he would be received differently. Instead he uses his goons to confront anyone that tells the truth about some of the things he has said in the past. He attempts to say that by telling the truth, these people are harming people who are doing good work to aid the victims of assualt. The problem remains that by having O'Reilly be the featured speaker at a fundraiser for the "Alexa" foundation, without him coming clean on things he has said in the past, the judgement of the organization (that cleary IS trying to do good things), is in question."

O'Reilly (who I personally find to be a repulsive ass) said that if the girl hadn't gotten drunk, she wouldn't have been murdered that night.

This is an objective, unimpeachable statement of fact.

If the girl had used a modicum of sense or responsibility in her actions, she would have avoided that horrible fate. Are you actually stupid or deluded enough to argue otherwise?

Truth is not nice, and it is not pretty, but people need to hear it in order to protect themselves. O'Reilly stated the simple truth of the matter.

The girl making it easy does not in any way diminish the culpability of the actual rapist. I sincerely hope that that subhuman pile of offal pissed off the wrong person in prison and subsequently died in an agonizing manner. But the fact is, if she hadn't made it easy she would still be alive.

The world is full of vicious, violent predators. Evil people who don't give a damn about anything but their own fleeting pleasure. When they encounter someone weak or stupid, they take advantage of them. Society currently promotes people being weak and acting stupid; the predators thrive.

You should be encouraging people to act smart, become tough, and take some responsibility for their lives. Instead, gutless trash such as yourself demonize those willing to make the not so nice statements. You pretend as if people have no power to shape their own lives, that if something happens to them its just bad luck. You keep people weak and unprepared with your politically correct garbage, and in doing so supply the predators of the world with a solid stream of easily gotten prey.

If someone douses themselves in blood and takes a swim in the middle of the Atlantic, are they blameless when a shark eats them? Is it just bad luck? Should you run around demonizing anyone who has the temerity to suggest that maybe people shouldn't go for a swim in the Atlantic while covered in blood, because those people just aren't being nice enough in their attempt to save lives? No. That would be absurd.

And yet when a pretty young girl dressed like a stripper gets too drunk to walk straight, and then goes wandering around alone in New York City, it is somehow a different situation. The magical BS of political correctness swoops in. "No, children, it is perfectly safe to run around drunk and naked in New York City. You don't have any power over your own lives. Don't try to take responsibility for your own protection." Instead of trying to give people the tools necessary to protect themselves, you sweep it all under the rug. You actually go after the people trying to save lives and prevent rape, because the truth they are telling isn't happy enough for your little childish paradise.

That sort of behavior is utterly contemptible.

The number of women who have been raped is absurdly high right now. Why? American society glorifies stupid, irresponsible behavior and teaches people to meekly submit to the threat of force. Don't go out and get hammered, and the likelihood you will be raped plummets. Know some basic self defense, and the likelihood almost disappears. Scream and fight back against a rapist, and your chances of escaping and surviving skyrocket.

It's much easier to live in a pretend world where you just drift through life, having no responsibility over what happens to you, but it's a lie. The truth is harsh, but if you accept it you won't be the next victim in the newspaper.

O'Reilly's producer is in trouble. Things are happening behind the scenes on both sides. Female employees at Fox upset with Jesse Waters antics and O'Reilly. Ailes and the Fox HR department also concerned.

Can't have a man who settled a sexual harassment suit for millions continually sicking male only producers to stalk women regardless of the circumstances.

Jesse Waters also broke the law and he did this on the Fox News payroll so they funded it which is why Ailes isn't happy - puts the network at risk to a lawsuit__________________

18 U.S.C. § 2261A Interstate Stalking (1996; 2000) § 2261A(1) makes it a federal crime, punishable from five years to life in prison, to travel across state, tribal or international lines to stalk another person. The defendant must have the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate the victim, or to place the victim, a family member, or a spouse or intimate partner of the victim, in fear of death or serious bodily injury.

First O'Reilly said that the victim was partially to blame for what happened to her for several reasons. One of the things he mentioned was that her dress made her a more likely target to become a victim. It sounds to me she was wearing what many or most young adult women wear when going out to a bar. By bringing up her attire, he is saying that by dressing normally, she made herself a target. Therefore it's her fault to an extent. I'm sorry but you can't go there. When he met Alexa did he ask her what she was wearing when she was sexually assaulted? It wouldn't be right to ask her, and it wasn't right to bring it up in this case either.

Regarding whether this meets the requirements to gain a legal conviction for stalking: That isn't the point. The point is that when you supposedly want to interview someone, you attempt to contact the through mail, e-mail, or telephone. If you are lookong to intimidate someone , then perhaps you might want to stake out their apartment, follow them when they leave the apartment, cross state lines and go over two hours away, stake out the place they are staying, until they finally come out so you can accost them on the street. It may not meet the legal requirements to get a stalking conviction, but if you ask 100 people if this was stalking, I'd be surprised if atleast 90 didn't think it was.

Also, Terkel doesn't need a case. As far as I know, she hasn't pressed any charges. She also doesn't need an excuse. She did nothing wrong.